Analysis:
Surprisingly many seemed in favor of tweaking citizenship in one way or other.
One thing expressed by 2 people as a general statement is that the citizenship rules need to remain objective and clear to keep the citizenship rolls accurate – while this was not a category of reform, the chair viewed this as something too important to leave out of the report
The major opinions are listed below from most radical to least radical:
(Note that the numbers indicate the number of people that said they could support it, and the “on the fence†would be people who expressed support with reservation, or indicated that they would not be opposed, it was exceedingly difficult to get a wide enough poll of people who were AGAINST things that it was felt by the chair it wouldn’t offer good guidance except as being indicated separately as their own issues – though there was at least 1 instance of a person who was very vocal on the forums – about “never supporting†a proposal, and so on. How many was FOR something may be enough of an indicator to help the RA discern any warranted actions. “Adopt a plot†was withdrawn from the list in favor of “residence requirement,†because on further examination, the support for a residence requirement was stronger than a symbolic plot and only supported in its own right by the proposer. Caveat – since figuring out where on the spectrum someone falls requires some discernment - this is not to be taken as a voting poll, just an indication of relative support. If the RA deems further clarification on this, it would be the Chair’s recommendation that the RA extend the mandate for the Commission do some sort of public poll with borda distribution similar to the selection of the 3rd SIM theme - for further direction provided.)
1. [5/6+3] Allowing people to purchase citizenship through an ongoing monthly fee instead of owning land. (5 people were for this, Gwyn indicated nothing in the transcripts so she is not included in this count except as the /6, though it is the authors suspicion that she would be supportive of this, and 3 were on the fence, the balance didn’t discuss it or were against)
This captures all the ideas between complete land-plot decoupling to a citizenship fee that is paid and can be applied to tier. There did not seem to be strong opinions of separating the citizenship fee from landowning completely except for some who were against the idea and said that it was impossible without a separation. For
For this option, a simple citizenship fee, payable monthly and applicable toward landowning tier captures much (all?) of the sentiment indicated.
Pelanor indicated that the main tests of citizenship would be: 1. Take Oath (affirmation?), 2. Be not banned, 3. Up to date with all fees (citizenship fee)
2. [3 + 5] Having a residency requirement of some sort in order to claim citizenship such as renting, or joining through a group (3 were for it, and 5 were on the fence)
This came up in the second in world meeting most strongly, but analysis of the forums and some threads in the first meeting shows this is a possibility. This would require allowing some sort of rental legislation passed, or some sort of group liberalization rule.
3. [ 2] Allowing people to earn citizenship through some service (ongoing) to the SIM (Both NGO and unspecified duties)
This was not fleshed out as much in he discussions, though it was clear that people who contribute to the community should be made citizens in some manner.
4. [2+1] Allow a reform allowing couples to purchase land together (couples)
Couples: Sleazy Writer (current CSDF Secretary General, but indicated he was speaking for himself only - though this was shared by Patroklus Murakami (LRA and CSDF member) on the forums) was in favor of proposals that make citizenship through a joint land purchase easier for partnerships of four or less people.
5. [4] No change at all (4 were for sticking with what we have right now)
6. [2] No clear desire for any particular reform expressed
There were a couple of people who were adamant that no change need be made. I think it is important to realize while many were for some sort of change or tweak, some indicated that they felt no change was required.
There were some concerns that were aired that I feel must be reported:
1. Landowner rights - feel that land rights must be respected or protected in some manner if landless citizens were to be allowed
2. Alt vote packing – expressed several times that it is felt that some sort of authentication is required to avoid people form using alts to influence elections.
3. Fear that landless citizens would cause a rush of faction recruiting of non citizens before an election
4. Any system must have an individual “pay†and make sure the citizenship is objectively verifiable – not someone’s “wordâ€
5. Fear that non landowning citizens would turn CDS into a talking shop
6. Fear that too rapid citizen expansion would result in unfavorable policies
7. Fear that rapid citizen expansion would change the electorate
These considerations MUST be addressed in some manner by the RA if any reform is to be proposed.
